Chicago Cubs 2026

#76      
Second place is 1st loser
bdutts said:
They don’t have to spend like the Mets but they should be over the tax threshold 2 of 3 years. If they did, they’d own the division. As it stands, they can’t beat the Brewers and that won’t change if they cheap out the way they have been.
Click to expand...
You have to put "cheap out" into context. They still have a top 10 payroll. They are not going to spend like the Dodgers, Mets or Phillies and quite frankly, that's ridiculous to have that expectation. The Dodgers ownership setup is far more lucrative than any other team in baseball. It's play money.

TO A POINT, A VERY SMALL POINT, Ricketts' commentary about Wrigley is true. There is maintenance associated with it that no other team has to deal with and amongst the top tier spenders, Wrigley is smaller. The Dodgers and Yankees can pack in 50,000+ people. Not sure about the Phillies. So, the Cubs have roughly 3M come through the gates, which is top 10. That said, the Cubs ticket prices are ridiculous, everything sold in the stadium is ridiculous and there's a crazy amount of revenue stream that comes in from outside of the stadium due to Wrigley. It's that portion that I'm not sure Ricketts considers being part of baseball operations. To that family, the Cubs are just one of many business units that they manage to the bottom line. It's a separate entity from other parts of their fortune. It's a tentacle from the mother ship per se.

You made a comment, and a darn good one, about not being able to best the Brewers. That's occurring despite the Cubs spending a LOT more on the major league club. That should never happen and that fact that it does is really on Hoyer. Ricketts gives him a budget of "xyz" and it's Hoyer's job and the developmental guys at the lower levels jobs to make the pieces fit. The Brewers lose all stars to free agency and just replace them with developed talent in the minors. The Cubs aren't able to go into their farm system and plug and play. VERY rarely has that occurred over the years, especially with pitching. That's not a Ricketts issue. If he's handing over $240M, that is PLENTY to win that division literally every year.

It's dueling issues that lead to unacceptable outcomes over the years. The World Series winner was a decade ago now. The grace period is over.

All that said, I'm not sure what the looming strike/lockout, which could last all season next year into the season after, is doing with regards to decision making with all of the teams. Baseball needs a huge fix from a structural/competitive standpoint which is going to have to include some sort of cap and maybe a salary floor. The players union won't budge, nor will the owners. So, not sure where that fits into everything.
 
#77      
GoodePodzMelendez
bdutts said:
Here's a statistical analysis of MLB spending and win %. MLB Spending vs Win %

The summary is that the higher the payroll, the better the win % which translates to a better chance to make the playoffs.
Click to expand...
With the lineup we have now, we will win 95 games. We really do not have any questions with the rotation like last year. The pen is solid. Could we use another bat? Possibly. I’d say bring Belli back as we will have a nice platoon system of Belli and Suzuki with Belli as a rotation CF to give PCA a day off. I would avoid Bichette or Bergman as I want Shaw cemented in at 3rd.
 
#78      
GoodePodzMelendez
Second place is 1st loser said:
You have to put "cheap out" into context. They still have a top 10 payroll. They are not going to spend like the Dodgers, Mets or Phillies and quite frankly, that's ridiculous to have that expectation. The Dodgers ownership setup is far more lucrative than any other team in baseball. It's play money.

TO A POINT, A VERY SMALL POINT, Ricketts' commentary about Wrigley is true. There is maintenance associated with it that no other team has to deal with and amongst the top tier spenders, Wrigley is smaller. The Dodgers and Yankees can pack in 50,000+ people. Not sure about the Phillies. So, the Cubs have roughly 3M come through the gates, which is top 10. That said, the Cubs ticket prices are ridiculous, everything sold in the stadium is ridiculous and there's a crazy amount of revenue stream that comes in from outside of the stadium due to Wrigley. It's that portion that I'm not sure Ricketts considers being part of baseball operations. To that family, the Cubs are just one of many business units that they manage to the bottom line. It's a separate entity from other parts of their fortune. It's a tentacle from the mother ship per se.

You made a comment, and a darn good one, about not being able to best the Brewers. That's occurring despite the Cubs spending a LOT more on the major league club. That should never happen and that fact that it does is really on Hoyer. Ricketts gives him a budget of "xyz" and it's Hoyer's job and the developmental guys at the lower levels jobs to make the pieces fit. The Brewers lose all stars to free agency and just replace them with developed talent in the minors. The Cubs aren't able to go into their farm system and plug and play. VERY rarely has that occurred over the years, especially with pitching. That's not a Ricketts issue. If he's handing over $240M, that is PLENTY to win that division literally every year.

It's dueling issues that lead to unacceptable outcomes over the years. The World Series winner was a decade ago now. The grace period is over.

All that said, I'm not sure what the looming strike/lockout, which could last all season next year into the season after, is doing with regards to decision making with all of the teams. Baseball needs a huge fix from a structural/competitive standpoint which is going to have to include some sort of cap and maybe a salary floor. The players union won't budge, nor will the owners. So, not sure where that fits into everything.
Click to expand...
I agree, Milwaukee has bettered us while spending a hell of a lot less in payroll. They have a farm system that develops. We are getting closer to that. We have PCA, Busch, Amaya, Shaw, and Nico as young players with Horton, Steele, once he gets healthy and a few BP guys who have come up through the system. Wiggins will be the next starter that will come up. Most likely will not be this year but 27 if we have a season. We do need to restructure the salaries via a cap with a floor. It will bring parity which works in the NFL. If we spend 240 million, that is plenty to win in the league.
 
#79      
Emerson Bigguns
GoodePodzMelendez said:
I agree, Milwaukee has bettered us while spending a hell of a lot less in payroll. They have a farm system that develops. We are getting closer to that. We have PCA, Busch, Amaya, Shaw, and Nico as young players with Horton, Steele, once he gets healthy and a few BP guys who have come up through the system. Wiggins will be the next starter that will come up. Most likely will not be this year but 27 if we have a season. We do need to restructure the salaries via a cap with a floor. It will bring parity which works in the NFL. If we spend 240 million, that is plenty to win in the league.
Click to expand...
Part of the success of Milwaukee is that they don't feel pressured to retain guys they develop. If we traded developing stars at the rate Milwaukee does, our fans would revolt.
If Nico were drafted by the Brewers, he'd already be a Yankee.
Not to be an apologist, but pat of the Cubs reluctance to spend big right now comes down to the threat of a work stoppage. Maintenance at Wrigley is high, but it's a lot bigger issue of you aren't getting 3M bodies through the turnstiles. It is really hard to know what a good deal looks like 3 years from now, let alone 7.

Unless you have a Monopoly money organization like LAD, NYY, or NYM, a ten year deal for a guy could be an absolute disaster down the line. I think the Cubs would be happy to explore a high AAV, short-term deal with a big bat, but the right deal has to materialize.
 
#80      
champaignchris
Trueblue777 said:
Get Bichette now and I will be happy as a meadowlark.
LF Happ
2B Hoerner
3B Bichette
1B Busch
RF Suzuki
CF Crow-Armstrong
DH Ballesteros
SS Swanson
C Amaya/Kelly

Rotation
Cabrera
Boyd
Horton
Taillon
Imanaga
Steele returns midseason and go to a 6 man rotation or use Rea in that spot until Steele returns

That is a Central division champion my friends
Click to expand...

Bichette’a bat is exactly what the team needs. My issue with Bichette is that he’s spent a grand total of 0 innings at 3B in his major and minor league career. I don’t know that he has the arm for it, and i don’t think you’d want to move one of your Gold Glove middle infielders to 3B to make room for him.

He might be able to handle 3B, but he’s certainly not the fielder that Hoerner and Swanson are.

The Cubs could say, “We only have Hoerner for one more year. We’ll make it work in 2026 and then move Bichette to 2B after thet.” Assuming that Shaw will be ready to handle 3B full time in 2027 after being the super sub in 2026.

They could also trade Hoerner’s last year to make room, but I’d want a nice return on immediate contributors if they were to do that. Otherwise, it would feel like treading in place.
 
#81      
bdutts
Second place is 1st loser said:
You have to put "cheap out" into context. They still have a top 10 payroll. They are not going to spend like the Dodgers, Mets or Phillies and quite frankly, that's ridiculous to have that expectation. The Dodgers ownership setup is far more lucrative than any other team in baseball. It's play money.

TO A POINT, A VERY SMALL POINT, Ricketts' commentary about Wrigley is true. There is maintenance associated with it that no other team has to deal with and amongst the top tier spenders, Wrigley is smaller. The Dodgers and Yankees can pack in 50,000+ people. Not sure about the Phillies. So, the Cubs have roughly 3M come through the gates, which is top 10. That said, the Cubs ticket prices are ridiculous, everything sold in the stadium is ridiculous and there's a crazy amount of revenue stream that comes in from outside of the stadium due to Wrigley. It's that portion that I'm not sure Ricketts considers being part of baseball operations. To that family, the Cubs are just one of many business units that they manage to the bottom line. It's a separate entity from other parts of their fortune. It's a tentacle from the mother ship per se.

You made a comment, and a darn good one, about not being able to best the Brewers. That's occurring despite the Cubs spending a LOT more on the major league club. That should never happen and that fact that it does is really on Hoyer. Ricketts gives him a budget of "xyz" and it's Hoyer's job and the developmental guys at the lower levels jobs to make the pieces fit. The Brewers lose all stars to free agency and just replace them with developed talent in the minors. The Cubs aren't able to go into their farm system and plug and play. VERY rarely has that occurred over the years, especially with pitching. That's not a Ricketts issue. If he's handing over $240M, that is PLENTY to win that division literally every year.

It's dueling issues that lead to unacceptable outcomes over the years. The World Series winner was a decade ago now. The grace period is over.

All that said, I'm not sure what the looming strike/lockout, which could last all season next year into the season after, is doing with regards to decision making with all of the teams. Baseball needs a huge fix from a structural/competitive standpoint which is going to have to include some sort of cap and maybe a salary floor. The players union won't budge, nor will the owners. So, not sure where that fits into everything.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Cubs were 11th in payroll last year according to Spotrac.

Interestingly, 6 of the 7 highest payroll teams made the playoffs (only the Mets didn't) and the two in the WS were top 5. There are a couple of things skewing the results: 1) wild card dilutes the field and will allow lower payroll teams in that wouldn't have been in otherwise in the past and 2) Some divisions, like the AL central, don't spend money (Detroit with the highest payroll at # 16 so bottom half). But, that's the world we live in. Spending money still leads to a better chance of making the playoffs and thus winning the WS.
 
#82      
bdutts
GoodePodzMelendez said:
With the lineup we have now, we will win 95 games. We really do not have any questions with the rotation like last year. The pen is solid. Could we use another bat? Possibly. I’d say bring Belli back as we will have a nice platoon system of Belli and Suzuki with Belli as a rotation CF to give PCA a day off. I would avoid Bichette or Bergman as I want Shaw cemented in at 3rd.
Click to expand...
Let's assume no more additions to the team. Are you saying that the defense will be as good with Suzuki in RF as compared to Tucker? Are you saying that Ballesteros will replace Tucker's production (or the DH spot in general)?

I think Shaw will take a step and get better. I'm not sure they'll get the same production out of the catcher spot that they did last year. I'm not sure what to expect out of Suzuki. His BA and OPB were lower with the same slug as the previous two years. Is that a product of him getting older or was it an off year?

I think they are a playoff team but more a wild card than a division winner. I'd say probably about the same as last year in terms of wins.
 
#83      
MikeTisdale
Assuming they stand pat from here (they won't - I'd suspect an OF or 3B bat is to come), the Cubs are like 3 wins worse in the OF without Tucker (and then another 2 more if PCA is the below average hitter he was in his last 402 PAs rather than the scorching hot hitter he was in his first 240 PAs). Adding Cabrera definitely gives the rotation a lot more depth, but Boyd likely won't match what he did last year and Horton beat his FIP by a full run last year. There's just no top of the line arms in the rotation unless you're really bought in on Horton - Imanaga was legit back of the rotation results for the second half of the year (his peripherals were bad all year) and Boyd hit a wall and was pretty bad in his last 10 starts.

It's probably an 88ish win team on paper (a good 3-4 wins behind the Brewers) that's really relying on 1) health in a thin OF 2) PCA being able to adjust back to first quarter of 2025 and 3) guys like Shaw taking a big step forward or Ballestros to continue to hit like he did in his short time (he won't).

Everything is set up for them (current payroll, need, 6 big dollar guys in their last contract year) to add a long term contract 3-4 win player like Bregman/Tucker/Bichette. So I really assume they still will, but without that, it's kind of crazy to think they're a 90+ win team right now.
 
#84      
Jimbo
I don’t follow the Cubs in the offseason as closely as most of you here. Who are we counting on as our closer next year? Such an important piece.
 
#85      
Emerson Bigguns
Jimbo said:
I don’t follow the Cubs in the offseason as closely as most of you here. Who are we counting on as our closer next year? Such an important piece.
Click to expand...
Day one? Probably Palencia again, though there will be competition. Several guys on the team with some closer experience.
 
#86      
GoodePodzMelendez
Jimbo said:
I don’t follow the Cubs in the offseason as closely as most of you here. Who are we counting on as our closer next year? Such an important piece.
Click to expand...
I wish they would take Brown, get his psyche back from the stupid move by making him a starter and develop him into the closer role. His two pitches will work in a late game setting.
 
#88      
Illinirog70
GoodePodzMelendez said:
With the lineup we have now, we will win 95 games. We really do not have any questions with the rotation like last year. The pen is solid. Could we use another bat? Possibly. I’d say bring Belli back as we will have a nice platoon system of Belli and Suzuki with Belli as a rotation CF to give PCA a day off. I would avoid Bichette or Bergman as I want Shaw cemented in at 3rd.
Click to expand...
But I REALLY want Tucker back! He's the difference maker both on defense and offense. Belli is not anywhere near as good, particularly at Wrigley (a la 2024.) Pay Tucker $210 mil over 6 years and we're set.

One year with a minor dip into the first level of the luxury tax for 2026 (costing a couple of million.) Back into the the "safe" zone in '27 and were ready to go forward, with a solid team built for future success.

GIVE.US.TUCKER!!
 
#89      
Seppuku
tatupu70 said:
Why shouldn't the Cubs spend like the Phillies? There is ZERO excuse for them to be 11th in payroll in a year they are trying to win. That is cheap. There is no other way to describe it.

Ricketts saying every dollar goes back into the team is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Pssssttt. Phillies have not won the WS since 2008, which is 8 years BEFORE the Cubs won their last one.

Again, I’m not sure why some people are so fixated on spending and having to spend lots of money. I’d rather the Cubs spend wisely, rather than shackle themselves with bad contracts just to be a top-5 payroll. I want the Cubs to build solid farm system and to augment via free agency. More often than not (much more often) building via free agency (mainly) fails.
 
#90      
tatupu70
Seppuku said:
Pssssttt. Phillies have not won the WS since 2008, which is 8 years BEFORE the Cubs won their last one.

Again, I’m not sure why some people are so fixated on spending and having to spend lots of money. I’d rather the Cubs spend wisely, rather than shackle themselves with bad contracts just to be a top-5 payroll. I want the Cubs to build solid farm system and to augment via free agency. More often than not (much more often) building via free agency (mainly) fails.
Click to expand...
And I don’t understand why some people equate spending more with spending unwisely. Let’s spend more and spend it wisely. And build a solid farm system. With the team’s revenue and resources it should be mandatory.
 
#93      
Seppuku
Just to be clear, are unhappy with these players and think there’s better (more expensive) options, or you’re simply unhappy that the Cubs are not paying them 3x or 4x times more?

Are you really complaining that the Cubs have such good players on the “cheap”?!

Were the Astros wrong and cheap when they made multiple WS and won a couple when many of their top players (the ones now getting or demanding big $) were still on their cheap, controlled contracts?!
 
#95      
bdutts
Seppuku said:
Just to be clear, are unhappy with these players and think there’s better (more expensive) options, or you’re simply unhappy that the Cubs are not paying them 3x or 4x times more?

Are you really complaining that the Cubs have such good players on the “cheap”?!

Were the Astros wrong and cheap when they made multiple WS and won a couple when many of their top players (the ones now getting or demanding big $) were still on their cheap, controlled contracts?!
Click to expand...
Houston had the following payrolls:

2017: 19
2018: 7
2019: 5
2020: 2
2021: 7
2022: 9
2023: 11
2024: 6
2025: 8
2026: 9

They were so low in 2017 because many of their stars were young, top 5 draft picks. They had to pay them if they wanted to keep their window open. They did pay them and they won another WS with playoffs every year and usually deep runs.
 
#96      
champaignchris
“Cheap” isn’t the word I’d use to describe the Cubs. I think “conservative” is the better word.

They’re not like the parody of a cheap franchise from “Major League.”

They spend money. They pay their staff well, they have first rate Major and minor league facilities. They spend on scouting and analytics. They’re among the top of baseball in providing amenities to their minor leaguers. Pretty much no one, on or off the field, has had a bad word to say about how the Ricketts’s run things. It seems players and staff genuinely like working for them.

But in the post-Epstein years, they’ve gotten extraordinarily conservative about spending on MLB payroll. They’ve sat out the top end of the free agent pool since the end of the 2018 season. That coincides with some pretty underwhelming on-field performance, with zero post season victories from 2018-2024.

So, I understand the frustration. The Cubs plan is to work on the floor. Try to assure 84-ish wins instead of taking a shot at 100-ish wins. Their thought is if they make the playoffs consistently, they’ll eventually hit a heater at the right time and win a WS. Which would be a good plan if they were actually making the playoffs 4 of 5 years instead of 1 of 5 years.
 
#97      
bdutts
Seppuku said:
Just to be clear, are unhappy with these players and think there’s better (more expensive) options, or you’re simply unhappy that the Cubs are not paying them 3x or 4x times more?

Are you really complaining that the Cubs have such good players on the “cheap”?!

Were the Astros wrong and cheap when they made multiple WS and won a couple when many of their top players (the ones now getting or demanding big $) were still on their cheap, controlled contracts?!
Click to expand...
Houston had the following payrolls:

2017: 19
2018: 7
2019: 5
2020: 2
2021: 7
2022: 9
2023: 11
2024: 6
2025: 8
2026: 9

They were so low in 2017 because many of their stars were young, top 5 draft picks. They had to pay them if they wanted to keep their window open. They did pay them and they won another WS.

Sorry for the double post. Not sure what happened…
 
#98      
tatupu70
champaignchris said:
“Cheap” isn’t the word I’d use to describe the Cubs. I think “conservative” is the better word.

They’re not like the parody of a cheap franchise from “Major League.”

They spend money. They pay their staff well, they have first rate Major and minor league facilities. They spend on scouting and analytics. They’re among the top of baseball in providing amenities to their minor leaguers. Pretty much no one, on or off the field, has had a bad word to say about how the Ricketts’s run things. It seems players and staff genuinely like working for them.

But in the post-Epstein years, they’ve gotten extraordinarily conservative about spending on MLB payroll. They’ve sat out the top end of the free agent pool since the end of the 2018 season. That coincides with some pretty underwhelming on-field performance, with zero post season victories from 2018-2024.

So, I understand the frustration. The Cubs plan is to work on the floor. Try to assure 84-ish wins instead of taking a shot at 100-ish wins. Their thought is if they make the playoffs consistently, they’ll eventually hit a heater at the right time and win a WS. Which would be a good plan if they were actually making the playoffs 4 of 5 years instead of 1 of 5 years.
Click to expand...
Those are good points and I agree except I would add that I think Ricketts has set a payroll limit in the 200-220MM range. Even if the Cubs don’t want to sign 10 year contracts, they should still be at or exceeding the first tier every season.
 
#99      
Emerson Bigguns
champaignchris said:
“Cheap” isn’t the word I’d use to describe the Cubs. I think “conservative” is the better word.

They’re not like the parody of a cheap franchise from “Major League.”

They spend money. They pay their staff well, they have first rate Major and minor league facilities. They spend on scouting and analytics. They’re among the top of baseball in providing amenities to their minor leaguers. Pretty much no one, on or off the field, has had a bad word to say about how the Ricketts’s run things. It seems players and staff genuinely like working for them.

But in the post-Epstein years, they’ve gotten extraordinarily conservative about spending on MLB payroll. They’ve sat out the top end of the free agent pool since the end of the 2018 season. That coincides with some pretty underwhelming on-field performance, with zero post season victories from 2018-2024.

So, I understand the frustration. The Cubs plan is to work on the floor. Try to assure 84-ish wins instead of taking a shot at 100-ish wins. Their thought is if they make the playoffs consistently, they’ll eventually hit a heater at the right time and win a WS. Which would be a good plan if they were actually making the playoffs 4 of 5 years instead of 1 of 5 years.
Click to expand...
I think they are gun shy due to the way the 2016 core flamed out after winning big. They were supposed to be built to last at that point. 2016 was supposed to be a year early... 2017 & 2018 were good years, but the team was not quite the same... and then the bottom completely fell out.

By 2019, everything they built during the Cinderella run had turned into a pumpkin. The farm was barren and not producing, and the guys they had bet on to carry the team forward had become shells of their championship selves. Guys they spent big on weren't living up to their contracts, so they tore the thing down to the studs and started over... Which was probably the right move.

Building a consistent winner takes a consistent approach. The last championship window was slammed shut due to taking big swings, missing, and not having the financial flexibility or organizational depth to pivot. This window of contention has opened due to a deliberate approach. Can they maintain consistent momentum? Time will tell...

That said, I do think they should pony up for a proven bat.
 
Back